Kristen Gyles | All hangs on one vote

I would love to run an experiment in the upcoming general election. I would love to swap the names of the two candidates running for office in my constituency to Drake Bell and Josh Peck and see what happens.

Drake would be the Jamaica Labour Party’s (JLP’s) candidate and Josh would be the People National Party’s (PNP’s) candidate, and since neither of these people exist as actual Jamaican member of parliament (MP) candidates, they should get no votes, right? But they will. And finally, we (including the political die-hards) would all admit that many Jamaicans could not care any less who the actual candidates are. For the most part, when Jamaicans vote, they vote for a political party, not a candidate. And who can blame them?

Under this weird electoral system, people do not know what to do at the polls. I can just imagine the immense pressure that rests on voters and the heavy sweat drops that must roll down their faces as they stand in the polling booth weighing their options for the last time. Wrapped up in their decision to mark the ‘X’, whether beside the head or the bell, is a decision of their preferred MP candidate, and therefore their preferred party, and therefore their preferred prime minister, who then has free rein to choose an entire cabinet of 11 or more people and also 13 (soon to be 15) members of the Senate. So, all hangs on one vote.

At what point do we acknowledge that the electoral system is not serving us? How about at the point of amending the constitution? Rumour has it that said process is well under way. Unfortunately, having assessed all the mostly cosmetic changes in the Constitution Amendment bill, especially in regard to the institution of some kind of president, who doesn’t do very much, there are hardly any actual changes – when so much needs changing.

GREAT OPPORTUNITY

The Constitution amendment process presents a great opportunity for us to make the required changes to our electoral system that will allow Jamaicans true involvement in the composition of parliament. Under the current constitution, the prime minister is simply “the member of the House of Representatives who … is best able to command the confidence of a majority of the members of that House”. In other words, the prime minister is the man or woman who the winning party chooses. Yet, despite not being directly chosen by us, the prime minister almost single-handedly decides the policy direction of the country.

So, the first major issue is that the so-called ‘voice’ of the Jamaican voter is very weak. Of all the major roles in the legislature, Jamaicans have a say regarding only one. In many jurisdictions, voters directly elect their prime minister or president … or both. In some of those same jurisdictions, voters also elect the Senate. Is none of this possible for Jamaicans? The other major issue is that there is an expectation that there will be two primary political parties. The constitution describes the leader of the Opposition as “the member of the House of Representatives who … is best able to command the support of a majority of those members who do not support the Government, or, if there is no such person, the member of that House who … commands the support of the largest single group of such members who are prepared to support one leader.” The leader of the Opposition is almost assumed to represent one political party and will be the head of the largest party not in government. So, whether there are three, four, five or five hundred parties, only two will matter in the end, since there will only be one prime minister and one Opposition leader.

THIRD PARTY

Unsurprisingly, just as the concept of a third party is not very well contemplated in the Constitution, so is the concept of an independent candidate running for the seat of MP. One would have thought that some effort would have been taken to move away from the two-party system that has kept us stuck in a game of political ping-pong since 1962.

Jamaica’s parliament needs a greater showing of independent thought and integrity. When bills are tabled in parliament, MPs and senators simply follow through on the wishes of their party leader. Political parties become echo chambers for the views of their party heads and whether to vote ‘yes’ or ‘no’ for the passage of legislation that affects our lives often becomes a game of political mileage.

This is why even the bill to amend the Constitution might just end up sitting in parliament gathering dust for another Aeon. There is no independence – only green and orange. One party leader endorses the bill and the other does not, and as usual, the MPs play “follow the leader”. Are we really comfortable going along with a system that gives primacy to party politics? Waning voter turnout is evidence that we are not. But can we do anything about it?

Truthfully, it is up to parliament to change what needs changing. Unfortunately, because they themselves are beneficiaries of this broken system, there is little incentive to change it. However, at the very least, they ought to care about a voter turnout that has been going lower and lower each election cycle.

The bill to amend the Constitution is a welcome attempt at improvement, but we can do better. If one can vote for an MP, they can also vote for a prime minister and they can also vote for senators.

Kristen Gyles is a free-thinking public affairs opinionator. Send feedback to kristengyles@gmail.com and columns@gleanerjm.com